You are here

Archived: 41 Birdwood Grove

The provider of this service changed - see new profile

Reports


Inspection carried out on 2 September 2014

During a routine inspection

We carried out this inspection as part of our routine inspection programme to answer our five questions. Is the service safe, is it effective, is it caring, is it responsive and is it well led? The inspection was carried out by a single inspector. At the time of our inspection there were three people using the service. We spoke with a relative of one of them. We observed the care and support people received in the shared areas of the home during our visit. We looked at records and files. We spoke with the registered manager and three members of staff.

This is a summary of what people told us and what we found.

Is the service safe?

The provider had effective recruitment processes and undertook the necessary checks before new staff started work.

The provider had processes in place to ensure people were protected against the risks and spread of infection.

Individual risk assessments were in place to protect people who used the service both in the home and in the community. Plans were in place to deal with foreseeable emergencies.

Is the service effective?

We found people�s care and support were based on assessments of their needs. Care plans were detailed and personalised. Systems were in place to ensure care was delivered according to people�s plans. The service worked in cooperation with other healthcare providers where appropriate.

People�s rights were protected because the service acted in accordance with the Mental Capacity Act 2005 and the Deprivation of Liberty Safeguards.

Is the service caring?

Staff we spoke with were motivated to provide good care. They knew about people�s needs and how they preferred to have their care delivered.

We observed positive, friendly interactions between staff and people who used the service. Staff checked regularly people were comfortable, content and whether they needed any assistance.

Is the service responsive?

People�s care plans were individualised and person-centred. The plans were reviewed regularly and adapted in line with people�s changing needs. People�s individual risks were assessed and actions taken.

The service took advice from other specialist healthcare providers as appropriate.

Is the service well-led?

We found risks were assessed and appropriate action plans were in place in people�s individual care plans. Effective systems were in place to regularly assess and monitor the quality of service provided. Incidents and accidents were handled appropriately and lessons were learned. A complaints procedure was in place.

Inspection carried out on 6 January 2014

During a routine inspection

41 Birdwood Grove has three people living there. On the day of our visit one person was at the home. Staff told us that two of the people were out for the day attending day services. We spoke with one person. Due to the nature of the individual�s learning disability we were able to gather limited comments.

We saw that people looked happy and relaxed in the presence of staff. The registered manager told us that two of the people had lived at the home since it had opened over twenty years ago and the third person had lived at the home for over four years.

We spoke with one person who lived at Birdwood Grove and we also spoke with three staff including the registered manager. We saw staff treated people in a sensitive, respectful and professional manner and involved individuals in the running of the home.

We looked around the home which was clean, comfortably furnished and free from unpleasant odours. We saw that in the living room their pictures on display that the individuals living in the home had painted. All the bedrooms were single occupancy with ensuite showers and toilets which had been adapted to individual needs. We saw that bedrooms were personalised with books, TV�s and pictures.

Inspection carried out on 27 March 2013

During a routine inspection

When we visited this home, the registered manager was on annual leave, but we were able to speak with the acting deputy manager and a support worker. The people using the service had complex needs which meant they were not able to tell us their experiences.

Staff had a good understanding of how people liked to be supported. For example, staff were able to communicate with people in a way they understood, and all interactions were friendly and positive. People were supported to make decisions about their care and mental capacity assessments were undertaken when appropriate. People accessed a range of activities outside the home, according to their interests.

People�s care plans provided detailed information about their care needs and preferences and their support plans were up to date. Their health and welfare was assessed and looked after appropriately.

Arrangements were in place for the safe management of medicines, and staff were able to describe how they supported people with their medication, and why it was needed.

Staff were appropriately trained for their roles, and had opportunities for regular supervisions and appraisals. They had access to professional development and said they felt supported and valued.

Systems were in place for monitoring the quality of the service, which included asking people for their feedback. We saw that action was taken to make improvements as a result of feedback, audits and inspections.

Reports under our old system of regulation (including those from before CQC was created)